Owen Paterson: I am delighted at the cross-party consensus. We agree with the Government that devices that jam detection devices should be banned. We all have detectors in the front of our head. They are called eyes. The more devices there are to tell us where cameras are, the better. We want people to drive at the right speed and within the law.
	In 1829, Peel stated:
	"Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public."
	I am worried that we will be at risk of losing respect for the law and voluntary observance if we have too much unfocused regulation. The resort must sometimes be to the stick, but it must also be to the carrot, and there is not much carrot in the Bill.
	On the stick, we will seek in Committee to toughen penalties still further. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned level crossings. Incredibly, the Shropshire Star has reported that in 2005, as I think he mentioned,
	"73 offences were reported involving motorists ignoring the red flashing lights, driving over the crossing, zigzagging across as the barriers are in the process of lowering and even colliding with lowered barriers."
	Sadly, some of the incidents occurred in Wem, in my constituency. That is completely insane, idiotic and stupid behaviour, and the Opposition will table amendments to toughen up on people who break rules on level crossings.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned a terrible hit-and-run tragedy. Again, we will be looking for greater penalties for those who leave the scene of an accident in which an injury has occurred before the emergency services arrive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, there is currently an incentive for someone who might be over the alcohol limit to drive away from an incident as fast as possible to give himself time to sober up. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East raised a valid point: we must bring in tougher measures on hit-and-run drivers, who I think form part of the small hardcore that I mentioned earlier.
	Careless driving was mentioned by the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, who has done so much on this matter. He mentioned the terrible case of Alexine Melnik. The Opposition have been open about the fact that we have reservations about clause 20 as it stands, although we welcome clause 33. We will discuss the provisions in detail in Committee. I discussed the concerns briefly with my hon. Friend prior to the debate. As I understand it, in the Alexine Melnik case, the driver—they may or may not have gone to sleep—who drove into the back of the car in which she was a passenger, driving her into the path of an on-coming vehicle, had been up and working since 4.30 that morning.
	We will look hard at the problem in coming days and produce our own amendments, but I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the following. I have a definition of manslaughter from "Webster's" dictionary:
	"The unlawful killing of a man, either in negligence or incidentally to the commission of some unlawful act, but without specific malice, or upon a sudden excitement of anger."
	"Archbold" gives a definition of dangerous driving that has two requirements:
	"The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver"
	and
	"It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving that way would be dangerous."
	As a layman, it seems to me that getting up at 4.30 in the morning and working all day, apparently without a break—I am obviously not au fait with all the details—is not behaviour that conforms to that of a competent and careful driver. I hope that the Minister will comment on whether a route forward might be to look at the laws of manslaughter and dangerous driving and see whether they can be enforced in a more effective manner.
	Our concern is that clause 20 as it stands hangs on the effect of the effects. If the person who was struck in an accident was a strong and fit middle-aged man, the incident happened in a town and the ambulance arrived within a few minutes and he was quickly taken to hospital, he could survive. In a rural area such as mine or the Forest of Dean, where an ambulance cannot be expected to attend within minutes—I think that the minimum in my area is 18 minutes—and the person involved is elderly and not terribly fit, exactly the same impact could cause a death. In one case, the circumstances would not lead to prosecution for death by careless driving, and in the other they would. I endorse the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell that we must examine the issue of severe injury.